I have been a volunteer door knocker. I am not kidding. You get a list. You are told to knock on these doors. Do not knock on doors that are not on the list.
Data mining generated these lists. They know voter registrations. They know voting history (whether you voted, not for whom). They combine this with other data they buy and they pull together a profile that allows them to have a model for doors that, if they vote, will vote for the candidate they want.
Now think of the targeting that can be done if they know your likes, searches, favorites, family members, friends, coworkers, ...
This is not tin foil hat territory. Elections are high stakes, winner take all affairs.
I would not be shocked if a Snowden-type person came forward and revealed that there already IS a voter turn out engine churning away in the bowels of one of these giant data companies.
This podcast completely missed the elephant in the room with regard to influencing elections. Nationally, the USA is a 50-50 country. Who wins is determined, not by changing peoples minds so much as getting YOUR voters to turn out and THEIR voters not to.
Campaigns have lists where they go through neighborhoods knocking on SPECIFIC doors that are likely to be THEIR voter just before elections. Why? Because they want to increase the likelihood of that person goes to the polls. Workers bypass the majority of doors, walking right past them. Why? Because knocking on those doors will increase the likelihood of a voter for an opponent going to vote.
Now enter Google, Facebook, and the rest. They know a LOT about how people vote. What if they did things to increase voter turn out for folks they supported while suppressing votes for folks they oppose? What are the ethic involved here?
Maybe certain users get PSA and stories in their feeds and searches that motivate them to vote while others get offered trips out of town, free movie coupons, etc. cleverly timed to make them too busy to vote.
This is probably legal. No one would know they were being manipulated. And it could sway elections in many races.
"pretty crappy for entrepreneurs" Compared to what? some ideal world where funding rains down like manna each morning? I think that YC has really been a game changer. They have established (and published) standard terms that are generally pretty favorable toward founders, though not infinitely so.
They may only have been the first of an inevitable trend but they are the FIRST and, if you count Paul Graham's work as YC's work, then you have to give them credit for actually moving the ball down the field. Not only is Paul putting his money where his mouth is, he is driving the discussion on blogs all over the web. He publishes an essay and within short order a lot of influential blogs are talking about the exact same topic (this blog and TechCrunch included). I am not faulting the blogs, but I am pointing out how critical YC has been.
These angels are in effect admitting that YC has had outsized impact (if Arrington is to be believed).
All good points. One thing that I often see in clean tech hype is counting the gains but not counting the losses. This is a net-net world we live in.
As to Natural Gas, the recent finds have made natural gas a very very attractive fuel for the US -- lots of it and relatively clean when compared to coal and oil.
But to my point, what is the efficiency of the Natural Gas Grid? It is clearly not 100% (it takes some energy to deliver the gas from well head to point of use). For all the discussion of how you will have no losses of electricity because it is generated locally, that isn't the fair measure of success. You have to take into account the transmission of gas itself (and then you have to compare the Bloom Box conversion efficiency as compared to the electric plant, and so on...)
I think a lot of the folks in Silicon Valley have blinders on but don't realize it.
From Paul Graham to Tech Crunch it seems that Software/Web start ups are the only type of startups that exist (or at least the only type they think are worthy of righting about).
Their advice is no very helpful to those who are making real things for example. They are always advising to release early and improve. For a complex physical product, tooling up and releasing a crappy beta is one of the surest ways into the deadpool.
The advice about VC is one of the consequences of this blind spot.
Joe J.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by DrJoe047.
Re: Re: Turn out: The elephant in the room
I have been a volunteer door knocker. I am not kidding. You get a list. You are told to knock on these doors. Do not knock on doors that are not on the list.
Data mining generated these lists. They know voter registrations. They know voting history (whether you voted, not for whom). They combine this with other data they buy and they pull together a profile that allows them to have a model for doors that, if they vote, will vote for the candidate they want.
Now think of the targeting that can be done if they know your likes, searches, favorites, family members, friends, coworkers, ...
This is not tin foil hat territory. Elections are high stakes, winner take all affairs.
I would not be shocked if a Snowden-type person came forward and revealed that there already IS a voter turn out engine churning away in the bowels of one of these giant data companies.
Turn out: The elephant in the room
This podcast completely missed the elephant in the room with regard to influencing elections. Nationally, the USA is a 50-50 country. Who wins is determined, not by changing peoples minds so much as getting YOUR voters to turn out and THEIR voters not to.
Campaigns have lists where they go through neighborhoods knocking on SPECIFIC doors that are likely to be THEIR voter just before elections. Why? Because they want to increase the likelihood of that person goes to the polls. Workers bypass the majority of doors, walking right past them. Why? Because knocking on those doors will increase the likelihood of a voter for an opponent going to vote.
Now enter Google, Facebook, and the rest. They know a LOT about how people vote. What if they did things to increase voter turn out for folks they supported while suppressing votes for folks they oppose? What are the ethic involved here?
Maybe certain users get PSA and stories in their feeds and searches that motivate them to vote while others get offered trips out of town, free movie coupons, etc. cleverly timed to make them too busy to vote.
This is probably legal. No one would know they were being manipulated. And it could sway elections in many races.
Scary.
Joe J
Re: Well, duh
"pretty crappy for entrepreneurs" Compared to what? some ideal world where funding rains down like manna each morning? I think that YC has really been a game changer. They have established (and published) standard terms that are generally pretty favorable toward founders, though not infinitely so.
They may only have been the first of an inevitable trend but they are the FIRST and, if you count Paul Graham's work as YC's work, then you have to give them credit for actually moving the ball down the field. Not only is Paul putting his money where his mouth is, he is driving the discussion on blogs all over the web. He publishes an essay and within short order a lot of influential blogs are talking about the exact same topic (this blog and TechCrunch included). I am not faulting the blogs, but I am pointing out how critical YC has been.
These angels are in effect admitting that YC has had outsized impact (if Arrington is to be believed).
Joe J.
How efficient is the Natural Gas Grid???
All good points. One thing that I often see in clean tech hype is counting the gains but not counting the losses. This is a net-net world we live in.
As to Natural Gas, the recent finds have made natural gas a very very attractive fuel for the US -- lots of it and relatively clean when compared to coal and oil.
But to my point, what is the efficiency of the Natural Gas Grid? It is clearly not 100% (it takes some energy to deliver the gas from well head to point of use). For all the discussion of how you will have no losses of electricity because it is generated locally, that isn't the fair measure of success. You have to take into account the transmission of gas itself (and then you have to compare the Bloom Box conversion efficiency as compared to the electric plant, and so on...)
Joe J.
Software/Web = Only type of Startup?
I think a lot of the folks in Silicon Valley have blinders on but don't realize it.
From Paul Graham to Tech Crunch it seems that Software/Web start ups are the only type of startups that exist (or at least the only type they think are worthy of righting about).
Their advice is no very helpful to those who are making real things for example. They are always advising to release early and improve. For a complex physical product, tooling up and releasing a crappy beta is one of the surest ways into the deadpool.
The advice about VC is one of the consequences of this blind spot.
Joe J.